Fwd: Re: [asa] Worthy of response?

Jack said:  You just keep asserting that human potential is worthy of protection without actually arguing why.

I just alluded to three arguments -- the precautionary principle, Kantian deontological duties, and virtue ethics:

1.  The precautionary principle says that, when faced with uncertainty, we ought not to take action that will cause significant harm if one or more of the uncertain scenarios turns out to be true.  We are uncertain about the moral status of pre-implantation zygotes.  If we are wrong about their moral status, and we abort them or create them for the purpose of destructive testing, we will have destroyed human life -- a grave harm.  Therefore, at present, we ought not to take such actions. 

 

I agree that we are uncertain about the status of pre-implantation zygotes.  But who is talking about creating them for the purpose of destructive testing?  They are already being created in the thousands in fertility clinics.  Many of them are created and frozen and never implanted.   I dont think you would disagree that if there is a compelling reason, it is justifiable to use these embryos even if their status is uncertain.  I guess you could take a very conservative stance, but if it means saving the life of someone with ALS or Parkinsons disease or cancer, I would suggest that is a compelling reason.

2.  A Kantian categorical imperative says that we ought to act only according to maxims that we would wish to become a universal law, and further that we should always treat humanity as an ends and not a means.  It follows from this that human potential should be  encouraged for its own sake.  Thus, we ought not to create potential human life for the purpose of destructive testing.

 

But you need to convince me that embryo's are humanity.  The potential to be human is not the same as being human.  Again the purpose is not destructive, it is for reproduction or for medical uses.

3.  An Aristotelian virtue perspective says that a community should adhere to virtues such as generosity, courage, and fidelity to trust, that are likely to enhance human flourishing.  Possessing the generosity, courage, and trustworthiness to nurture human potentiality requires us to adopt certain practices -- such as providing for the care of expectant mothers, infants and children -- and to eschew others -- such as establishing systems in which human potentiality is purposefully terminated. 

 

And shouldn't we care for the sick?  If stem cells will heal or cure isn't it not virtuous to look into ways to treat them?  You have a very different, and more negative,  understanding of stem cell research than I do, I would not call it "destructive testing", and the purpose of research is not to "purposefully terminate" human life or potentiality.